9 Responses to: ‘Five Myths of “Gay Marriage” @ Signs of the Times’

“Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship”

I think the writer is arguing that marriage has an ontological reality outside of the popular conception of what marriage is. In other words, its meaning is bestowed from outside the couple involved … from above. The author implies that it’s the “union of a man and a woman”, though they ignore the fact that there are numerous other restrictions placed on marriage by Scripture, most of which are not a matter of civil marriage legislation for heterosexuals as it is. As such, it seems odd to demand a standard be imposed for gay couples when it’s not required of heterosexuals.

“The reality is that legislation to introduce gay marriage would not remove a ban on same-sex couples getting married because no such ban exists”

This is good to know. So then making gay marriage legal won’t make it “exist” either. So what’s the fuss about? I’m not sure.

“Myth #3: Gay marriage is the most tolerant option”

I agree that we need to accommodate religious institutions and believers. However, I think we can do this and reach a compromise without holding the entire nation hostage to the beliefs of some. Someone on another blog seemed to imply that the laws that permitted interracial marriage somehow imposed an infringement on the rights of Bob Jones University (which banned it) and who lost their tax-exempt status. I might warn against the tyranny of a minority. To suggest that we keep interracial illegal merely so that BJU could retain their freedom to discriminate is absurd in the extreme. Likewise with gay marriage. Compromises need to be found. They can be.

“I think we can do this and reach a compromise without holding the entire nation hostage to the beliefs of some.”
How is this even a plausible notion? Someone’s beliefs have to matter more. The ability to discern between two competing views takes the ability to discern value. If you value the institution of marriage then why change it? Why seek to redefine it? When did it become deficient? The problem homosexual “marriage” proponents have is with the actual institution itself. Marriage has never been understood to be a homosexual institution. Hence, the “deficiencies” are not to be blamed on marriage–the homosexuals’ expression of their ‘union’ is what is deficient. Please stop blaming the deficiency on the institution of marriage. Homosexuality is a perversion of the truth. This is evident.
Further, a compromise means each side gives in order that neither loses completely. Everyone loses completely if homosexual “marriage” proponents redefine marriage. And that is exactly what homosexual “marriage” is…a completely different institution than the institution of marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been completely, fundamentally different than homosexuality.

Indeed true B Cody. Also, Inwant to take issue with something that James said. He made the statement that to deny homosexual marriage is to keep people hostage or bound to the religious beliefs that not everyone shares. The problem with this argument is that to endorse homosexual sex in any way actually holds people hostage to a religious belief that many of us don’t share. That set of beliefs is known as paganism. There is no moral or religiously neutral corner on this issue.

Not it’s not. It’s just not your variety of faith. By the way, do you take issue with the federal government recognizing such “pagan” faiths as Buddhism, Hinduism and Mormonism and granting their practitioners civil protections for their chosen religious affiliation? (Ponder that for a moment: chosen).

You are aware that you cannot fire someone merely because you don’t like “pagans” or “heretics”, right? You do know that all these faiths are given no less credence and validity than the Christian faith, yes?

Perhaps if folks like you and BCody weren’t making this a “winner take all” sort of fight, perhaps more of us would be willing to compromise.

For example: I think some religious organizations should not have to recognize any marriages that they would not recognize within their own churches (whether they were interfaith or gay marriages or, in the case of Bob Jones U, even interracial marriages).
Small businesses not providing a necessary public service should be given certain exemptions.

Of course, churches should be free to preach morality as they see fit, whether it’s in the pulpit or on public street corners. Their ability to deny marriage rites to some couples should be retained.

None of this is sufficient for you two, though, apparently. You want to define marriage law for the entire nation and for people whom you’ve never met based on the fact that you believe you have an insight into the mind of God that the rest of us do not have. To disagree with you is to disagree with God. That’s a convenience mechanism for ending all discussion, isn’t it?

You either believe in freedom or you don’t. If you’re going to make this a zero-sum game whereby the freedoms of others are denied without explanation or sufficient cause, then don’t be surprised if we respond accordingly.

Robert,
I make no apologies to James. He comes to an evangelical Christian blog and expects a “compromise.” Keep standing on the Word of God, brother. We visit Mere Comments because we appreciate and learn from the perspective of the bloggers here. Mr. Bradshaw obviously comes here to argue his perspective–not to learn. He will probably continue playing the ‘wounded bird’ and singing ‘woe is me’…His offer of compromise ultimately ends where we see other countries like Canada headed–persecution of Christians who preach the truth of the Word of God. Stand firm, Robert! Here I stand.

James Bradshaw: You want to define marriage law for the entire nation and for people whom you’ve never met based on the fact that you believe you have an insight into the mind of God that the rest of us do not have.

That doesn’t even make sense. Marriage is not some obscure theological doctrine. You don’t even have to believe in God to see the patently obvious fact that it takes one man and one woman to produce offspring, not two men or two women or any other combination. (Also, to see that human children need raising by their parents, as opposed to some animals that are hatched ready to leave the nest.) That is what the word “marriage” refers to, and it is not something you or any government can redefine. You can change the word, if you get enough people to use it in a different way… you could get people to use the word “moon” to refer to pizza, but that hardly makes the moon into a pizza. It’s hard to see why anyone would want to do that who isn’t a troublemaker, and in the end we’ll just need a new word to refer to original fact, which isn’t going anywhere. Two people of the same sex are by nature not equivalent to a male-female couple, and the idea that it’s a matter of “freedom” to somehow legislate them into being the same is simply bizarre.

I’m simply reminding you that gay marriage is now legal in several states … by popular vote, and it appears the DOMA may be struck down.

I’m here as a supporter of gay marriage who also respects religious liberty and would like it to remain intact, even in the instances where I disagree. As such, I’m not sure I understand your antagonism.

If you want those of us who actually are sympathetic to your rights to shut up, well, fine then.

James,
I don’t believe in luck. I believe in a personal savior named Jesus Christ, who has called me to deny myself, take up my cross and follow Him.
You are being antagonized by the truth–that homosexuality is a sin. It is morally wrong. Trust me: all sinners (this includes me) must deal with the offense of the gospel.